This is a very interesting debate, and I'm glad it was started, because it has me thinking beyond digital vs. analog.

If I may throw out a point.

If manipulation of data is the main point with digital because there is nothing to back it up (a negative) then I think we have to look at a bigger picture. Since trust simply isn't good enough, then as investigators, we can no longer use temperature instruments, EMF readers, audio equipment, and video equipment. Nor do experiences and eyewitness accounts matter either.

For example: My group caught this temperature drop at a site (prove it). We recorded this EMF reading (prove it). Listen to this EVP we caught (how do we know that voice isn't yours?). Check out this video footage (prove this isn't manipulated or staged in some way).

So if we are to apply the standards and scrutiny in regards to digital cameras, then it seems to me that the only thing that should be allowed as possible evidence is an analog photograph due to the negative being able to back it up. And even this could only apply to an apparition because how can you prove that orb isn't something else, or that anomaly isn't a camera strap, or that odd fog isn't smoke or breath?

This is a very interesting debate, and I'm glad it was started, because it has me thinking beyond digital vs. analog.

If I may throw out a point.

If manipulation of data is the main point with digital because there is nothing to back it up (a negative) then I think we have to look at a bigger picture. Since trust simply isn't good enough, then as investigators, we can no longer use temperature instruments, EMF readers, audio equipment, and video equipment. Nor do experiences and eyewitness accounts matter either.

For example: My group caught this temperature drop at a site (prove it). We recorded this EMF reading (prove it). Listen to this EVP we caught (how do we know that voice isn't yours?). Check out this video footage (prove this isn't manipulated or staged in some way).

So if we are to apply the standards and scrutiny in regards to digital cameras, then it seems to me that the only thing that should be allowed as possible evidence is an analog photograph due to the negative being able to back it up. And even this could only apply to an apparition because how can you prove that orb isn't something else, or that anomaly isn't a camera strap, or that odd fog isn't smoke or breath?

Words of wisdom right there my friend. I agree with you 150%. I dont think ive ever seen that question answered so good.

-Roger-

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die and you to live. Which is the better, only God knows. - Socrates I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. . - SocratesEnergy Hot SpotsEnergy Hot Spots New EnglandEnergyhotspots DemonicologyLet the house of Israel say / His mercy endures forever Let the house of Aaron say / His mercy endures foreverLet those who fear the lord say / His mercy endures forever

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die and you to live. Which is the better, only God knows. - Socrates I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. . - SocratesEnergy Hot SpotsEnergy Hot Spots New EnglandEnergyhotspots DemonicologyLet the house of Israel say / His mercy endures forever Let the house of Aaron say / His mercy endures foreverLet those who fear the lord say / His mercy endures forever

Interests:Ghost Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hanging with my best friend and soulmate

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:20 PM

Grim, it isn't unfortunate at all really. It is smart. No, you can't say pixelation but what if someone accuses him of photoshopping the photo? Then he has nothign to fight that accusation off. Plus, he has plenty of stuff taken on film that he and his group does put out. You will have to see Children of the Grave when it comes out as their group is in it and they filmed some astounding stuff. Like I stated before, if it all comes down to simply trust and nothing more solid than that, heck I have already proven the existance of ghosts because I have seen one with the naked eye. Now that being said, we can all agree that ghosts do in fact exist without any doubt. Trust me. (not being a smart butt just making a point here)

Is there a thing called a memory stick that goes inside of a digital camera? That to me is my negitive! This subject is going nowhere! And never will! Dave

Two hearts drawn together bound by destiny. Every road leads to your door...."Will you still love me?" By Chicago. Love is the reason we'll never be alone. In love, in love.... "I believe." By Chicago. I LOVE YOU JULIET!!! The Spirit Stalker of Ohio "BREAK ON THROUGH TO THE OTHER SIDE" The Doors! GOOD DAVE HUNTING

Interests:Ghost Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hanging with my best friend and soulmate

Posted 17 April 2007 - 04:24 PM

Grim, If I were to take a photo that I thought could have been paranormal on a digital camera. I would never post in in the public or present it to anyone that exists outside of my own group. Simply because I couldn't back up my photo.

I know another investigator that has one of an apparition that he took on a digital before he learned that you can't back up evidence on a digital. It is of a woman coming through the door and she has no feet and no eyes. It sounds very cool, I have not seen it. He will never put this on his site or present it to the public as evidence of a ghost. It is probably a fantastic shot but not solid enough of evidence to present.

It is unfortunate that your colleague feels this way because I'm sure it's an excellent photo. He may not be able to back up the picture with a negative but I don't see how you could blame a full formed apparition on pixelization!

I understand that everyone in this discussion has their own opinions, but I feel that we are limiting ourselves as investigators by dismissing digital data. And it still, in the end, comes down to credibility and trust, because like it was mentioned before, the majority of us are hobbyists, at different levels, when it comes to ghost research.

There have been a few pictures submitted here at Ghostvillage which were taken with an analog camera. Even though there were negatives to go along with the pictures the people were still questioned. I'm not saying that we shouldn't scrutinize but sometimes you have to take something for what it is. One example I can think of was Dave and Juliet's man on the bridge (please forgive me if that was a digital picture!). I, personally, trust Dave and Juliet's work. So if they submit a photo of a man on a bridge which they say they have no idea who it is, well then, I believe them. So this is why it doesn't matter to me whether it's a digital or an analog. Sure, analog film can be backed up better with a negative, but there are still those who are going to tell you that your figure is a tree, or a member of your ghost team, or a tombstone, or whatever.

I think what we have to remember here too, in relation to analog vs. digital, is that EVP is a main source of positive data and there is nothing to back that up except for your word. If you really look at it, none of our data is ever air-tight, so why do we bother to try to document ghosts at all? This is why Grim Undertakings approaches things as, "This is what we have, we have no explanation for it, judge for yourself what it is and we welcome feedback".

So, I'm all for digital photography. It makes no difference to me because in the end it still comes down to credibility and trust anyway.

Thank you, thank you and thank you! Maybe the 35 mm wouldn't of picked up the apparition. But the digital did! And it's on a memory card!!! Dave

Edited by damckie, 17 April 2007 - 04:26 PM.

Two hearts drawn together bound by destiny. Every road leads to your door...."Will you still love me?" By Chicago. Love is the reason we'll never be alone. In love, in love.... "I believe." By Chicago. I LOVE YOU JULIET!!! The Spirit Stalker of Ohio "BREAK ON THROUGH TO THE OTHER SIDE" The Doors! GOOD DAVE HUNTING

The discussion seems to never go anywhere because it seems to me (yes, non-expert here) that in terms of the debate as a whole (not just here) some on either side refuse to even consider the other, ya know what I'm saying?

I can see the points made by both sides of the debate. And I can see where Film may be easier to present to Skeptics as evidence rather than Digital. I can see the benefits of Digital. I can see the benefits of Film.

So perhaps instead of utterly dismissing each others points, it might better benefit to try to figure out a way to best foolproof the use of Digital for presenting evidence as the technology improves. (no, Digital is not at the top of it's game yet. It's a young form of photography and my own digital camera is pretty much crap and it's only a year or two old.) and at the same time acknowledging the simple fact that in terms of Spirit Photography, the long standing use of film and the solid base of knowledge of the medium has done much in the way of aiding the field.

(I may also point out that I seriously doubt that film is going anywhere anytime soon. Artsy folks have a tendency to like it.)

I'd also like to take a moment to remind everyone here that this discussion is in no way, shape or form meant to question the validity of anyone's evidence, digital or film. I have noticed a few people seem to be taking it that way.

If manipulation of data is the main point with digital because there is nothing to back it up (a negative) then I think we have to look at a bigger picture. Since trust simply isn't good enough, then as investigators, we can no longer use temperature instruments, EMF readers, audio equipment, and video equipment. Nor do experiences and eyewitness accounts matter either.

For example: My group caught this temperature drop at a site (prove it). We recorded this EMF reading (prove it). Listen to this EVP we caught (how do we know that voice isn't yours?). Check out this video footage (prove this isn't manipulated or staged in some way).

So if we are to apply the standards and scrutiny in regards to digital cameras, then it seems to me that the only thing that should be allowed as possible evidence is an analog photograph due to the negative being able to back it up. And even this could only apply to an apparition because how can you prove that orb isn't something else, or that anomaly isn't a camera strap, or that odd fog isn't smoke or breath?

Every reading is part of the case. If there was an unexplained temperature change and weird EMF readings and unusual perceptions by group members (visual, audial, emotional, etc) and your camera (either film or digital) picks up anomalies and your audio recorder picked up an EVP, then it's much harder to refute than if you only had one or two of those conditions.

It also helps to explain why you took that photo. I'm sure we've all seen that shot of an empty auditorium with a transparent man sitting towards the back. If the anomaly is the only thing interesting in the shot it raises my suspicion of doctoring.

This last point is getting harder to argue because people are taking shots in the dark at locales rumored to be haunted, so there might not be any other reason for photographing "nothing".

Ok, back on track; why is it important to prove paranormal activity to a Skeptic? A Skeptic would not be a Skeptic if he/she did not take that negative or digital storage devise and throw it in the garbage without even bothering to look at it anyway, and if they were to examine it, they most likely would attempt to discount rather than disprove. A skeptic canít disprove something thatís true, but they can discount it as unsubstantiated or irrelevant. So I say ignore them and tell them to get a real job.

You only need to prove paranormal activity to practitioners of paranormal activity.
Spirit photography has gotten a bad rep over the last 150 years (give or take). No one has ever come forward and proven that SPIRIT photography is even possible.

Yep, TAPS does use some digital but have you ever seen them offer any photos as evidence? Not one time have they ever offered a digital photo as evidence on an investigation that you would have seen on TV. In fact Steve Gonsolves said it best..."If you want to look at the pictures yourself or among your group, digital is fine, but if you want to show others outside your group you need a negative."

Yes you are right! But have you ever thought that they only capture orbs on digital and don't want to show them? I believe if they caught an apparition or some ecto on digital they would show that has evidence on t.v. But all they get is probably orbs. As we all know Jason and Grant do not like to show orbs as evidence of the paranormal. Just some thoughts here. Dave

That truly isn't the case, this came directly from Steve's own mouth in a conversation with him. TAPS doesn't support any of their own photos on digital as evidence. They do use them as a mapping tool which of course is not proving evidence which is ok to do.

Taken from Taps Board........Give Me Some Proof - Part 1Catching them on Film

Ghost Hunting/Investigating, as we know it, is an attempt to understand and prove the existence of paranormal beings, powers or intelligence. Understanding it isn't that hard, but providing evidence can be more than difficult.

Photos that claim to have captured the image of a supernatural being are among the most scrutinized evidence out there. (short of maybe UFO pictures or maybe even photos from the OJ Simpson case) The simple fact is, ghosts tend to appear as mists, orbs or other vaguely distinguishable forms which, unfortunately closely mimic very natural, very earthly circumstances. And so they are easily debunked.

So, how do you get people to believe you? Take some very deliberate precautions.

1. The first and foremost rule a ghost hunter should follow is, "Be Skeptic" Just because you see a shiny orb in the woods through your night vision video camera, don't think you've caught a ghost. Try and think of what earthly item it could be. Ask yourself questions like; "Is it moving or standing still?" "Does it show up in every photo I take?" "Is there ANYTHING that might have caused a reflection?". If you ask these type of questions, you'll catch your own "hoaxes" before they are debunked by someone else hence ruining your credibility.

2. "2 or More Witnesses" Even in the legal systems, two or more witnesses will always outweigh what one person claims to be the truth. If you can say "There were eight of us there and no one saw the figure in this image." chances are people will believe you. Especially when they interview the other seven people and get the same story.

3. "Never Smoke" on a case that is. If you can say, with confidence every time, that no one was smoking or had been smoking, you rule out 98% of skeptics' excuses for "mist" type pictures. In the case of cold weather cases, let everyone around you know you are about to take a picture, then have everyone hold their breath for at least five seconds (if not ten) before you snap it. If you make a habit out of this, then you'll know for sure that you didn't catch anyone's breath on film. (It should be said that it is quite easy to distinguish cigarette smoke or human breath from ethereal mists.)

4. "Surprise Them" Take the ghost by surprise. Some ghost want to be caught on film, some don't care, others don't want to be caught at all. Because we don't know the ghosts' feelings about this, there is only one way to pretty much guarantee that you'll catch it on film. This is by casually snapping a picture, over your shoulder even, whenever you get the inkling to. It may sound silly but it works. Trust me. There's no need to line up a perfect shot, as long as there is a ghost in it, no one cares if it's not "framed" right.

5. "Trust your Feelings" Learning to trust your feelings can yield astounding results. If you get even the slightest urge to snap a picture somewhere, Do IT! Don't hesitate. Most often pictures taken like this will be the only ones that show results.

6. "Get a Digital Camera" Ok, so this isn't a "rule" but a personal suggestion. Number one, you don't need to worry about film. Number two, you get instant gratification. There's nothing quite like knowing exactly where these things were just a few seconds earlier. Number three, you can instantly email them to TAPS so everyone can see what you've found!

Hopefully, these tips will help increase the amount of specters you catch on film, and therefore increase your desire to continue looking for and learning about the paranormal.

Ok, back on track; why is it important to prove paranormal activity to a Skeptic? A Skeptic would not be a Skeptic if he/she did not take that negative or digital storage devise and throw it in the garbage without even bothering to look at it anyway, and if they were to examine it, they most likely would attempt to discount rather than disprove. A skeptic canít disprove something thatís true, but they can discount it as unsubstantiated or irrelevant. So I say ignore them and tell them to get a real job.

You only need to prove paranormal activity to practitioners of paranormal activity. Spirit photography has gotten a bad rep over the last 150 years (give or take). No one has ever come forward and proven that SPIRIT photography is even possible.

?

Ummm...proving to ourselves is the equal of preaching to the choir so to speak. We already believe.

Debunkers (the people you have in mind when you refer to skeptics, real skeptics won't dismiss out of hand and do keep an open mind) we likely couldn't prove anything to at all, simply because, as you illustrate, they will dimiss anything and everything.

A skeptic however, provided they aren't one of those dismissive and arrogant debunkers, will look at the evidence provided. They will ask intelligent and applicable questions. They will review, analyize. If they cannot come up with a plausible natural explaination, they say so.

I also think, personally, that the people we need to get on side are scientists, authentic skeptics and researchers. And in order to do that we need to present good evidence. Hence this and other discussions.

Spirit Photography has a bad rap due to frauds. I think every single one of us can come up with a few examples of that. Akin to "The Boy Who Cried Wolf". So many frauds and honest misconceptions have occured over the years that it becomes the first thing to pop into people's heads. However, the images that have been proven to NOT be fraud and NOT be a misinterperatation of a natural phenomena to me ARE proof of the ability to somehow capture spirit activity in a video or photograph.

So to sum it up. Don't prove it to me. Prove it to the real Skeptic. And just leave the arrogant Debunkers out of the equasion.

Every reading is part of the case. If there was an unexplained temperature change and weird EMF readings and unusual perceptions by group members (visual, audial, emotional, etc) and your camera (either film or digital) picks up anomalies and your audio recorder picked up an EVP, then it's much harder to refute than if you only had one or two of those conditions.

I agree, but when it comes to backing up your claims, the only thing you really can provide is the negative(s) from the analog camera. Which brings the whole thing back to trust and credibility.

Is there a thing called a memory stick that goes inside of a digital camera? That to me is my negitive! This subject is going nowhere! And never will! Dave

A memory stick does not show anything, i can take a picture, edit it the way i want to, and put it back onto the memory stick. But the pictures themselves show something. When you take a picture with a digital camera, the exact date and time of the shutter-release are recorded to your image file, along with many other bits of "meta data." and every time you take a picture, your camera will also save information about your exposure time, f-stop setting, ISO, focal length, and so on.

-Roger-

The hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways--I to die and you to live. Which is the better, only God knows. - Socrates I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing. . - SocratesEnergy Hot SpotsEnergy Hot Spots New EnglandEnergyhotspots DemonicologyLet the house of Israel say / His mercy endures forever Let the house of Aaron say / His mercy endures foreverLet those who fear the lord say / His mercy endures forever

Is there a thing called a memory stick that goes inside of a digital camera? That to me is my negitive! This subject is going nowhere! And never will! Dave

A memory stick does not show anything, i can take a picture, edit it the way i want to, and put it back onto the memory stick. But the pictures themselves show something. When you take a picture with a digital camera, the exact date and time of the shutter-release are recorded to your image file, along with many other bits of "meta data." and every time you take a picture, your camera will also save information about your exposure time, f-stop setting, ISO, focal length, and so on.

-Roger-

This would also include every bit of info inside your computer's memory. Nothing is lost or deleted ever. Its in there, so anything that has been altered would show too. So if you want to get right down to truth and proof of anything of a fraud or real evidence, go inside their computer.End of story.